Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
markw-FJ05HQ0HCKaWd6l5hS35sQ at public.gmane.org wrote: > Read some detailed text about database theory that discusses the various > algorithms for accessing data that does not focus on any single database. > Get a grip on the whole of the subject. I'm fairly familiar with the underlying general database principles (and gained my foundation in databases on servers predating MySQL). The information I lack is the extent to which MySQL, and the likely alternatives, adhere to those principles. (I'd like to find a resource more convenient than sifting through the source code myself.) For example, I know why transactions are useful, but I also know that for some situations atomic operations will do the job just as well, but this doesn't scale to situations where complexity requires executing multiple statements. Knowing general principles only goes so far in this situation, as it depends on the specific implementation details as well as the nature of the problem being solved. Most information sources echo opinions, and it's easy to find them on both sides. What's needed is an expert analysis of the actual implementation, and an opinion given in the context of a specific type of problem. Also, many of the comparative differences come down to performance, rather than functionality. Take your discussion of how MySQL handles locking. It has long been criticized for for using table locking, but only real-world application benchmarks prove whether that poses a noticeable performance hit. > I have had MySQL developers look in wonder as I reduce their queries to > sub-selects and functions, that improve the performance by at least an > order of magnitude. Saying "I didn't know you can do that." My response is > "You can on most real SQL databases." (but can't on MySQL) This is indicative of an obsolete criticism, as MySQL currently supports both. I understand why this comes about, as no one would want to spend time keeping current on a tool they didn't use, but it greatly detracts from your points when they're aimed at obsolete versions. -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |